[gombo121]

Law 40B(2a) states:

Quote

[RA] may vary the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method).

Though I failed to pinpoint the exact source for the general requirement referenced here, it is common knowledge that both players in a pair have to use the same system. But I've started to wonder why law-givers introduced it and what was their intent and, consequeently, what does it actually means - where is a watershed between style and method.

As an example:
1) Suppose, partners could not agree on the style of preempts, one preferring solid preeempts and the other - wild ones. In the end they decided that each would use his own preference and partner would bid accordingly (properly disclosing the style when asked, of course). Is it legal?

2) Suppose, a bidding system has 1m-3NT defined as "to play" and "1m-3s" defined as a puppet to 3NT, which may be passed out. The partnership is supposed to use one route or another according to their judgement. But it happens that one of the partners is much better declarer than the other, so they judge it advantageous that he would be declaring all their 3NT contracts. Is it legal as a discussed agreement? Is it legal if it is implicit?

The questions above are not meant as "can you get away with that?" - you probably can, - but as whether such consctructs are meant to be banned or allowed.

[manudude03]

Regarding style, you have to disclose it if asked, but you are allowed to disagree on if a hand is appropriate or not.

Playing 1m-3S as a puppet to 3N and 1m-3N to play is fine provided it would mean that regardless of which partner bid it. If you play South African Texas, it is not uncommon to play that 1N-4M is to play while 4m is a transfer to the appropriate major.

What isn't ok though is to play that 1N-2H is to play for one partner while it is a transfer if the other bids it.

[The_Badger]

hi gombo121,

I read that law half-a-dozen times and goodness knows how a tournament director interprets it. Having re-read it a further half-a-dozen times, I personally think it is vague gobbledegook (and I worked in four different government departments so I am quite familiar with rules, regulations, bureaucracy and Plain English.)

[Cyberyeti]

manudude03, on 2016-August-25, 03:09, said:

What isn't ok though is to play that 1N-2H is to play for one partner while it is a transfer if the other bids it.

This is exactly why this rule is there, I saw it in schools bridge 40 years ago where one partner was much better than the other

[barmar]

I believe the intent is to prevent "client" systems that are designed so that the pro gets to play most of the hands.

In midnight zips, junior pros used to play with caddies who barely know the game, and they would play what they called the "caddy system" where the caddy's bids were all transfers. System regulations were generally relaxed in these games, so I guess the RA was exercising their 40B2 right to vary this requirement.

[mycroft]

I think it's more "and by 'relaxed', what we mean is 'don't apply unless the opponents complain. If the opponents complain, an acceptable TD response is "why are you playing the midnights again?" '

I think my favourite midnight story of the last 10 years (my favourite overall was when my partner won a beer against Meckstroth, and won the match (and the event)) was when the junior pro complimented his partner on her play. "But", said an opponent, "she just pulled trumps and took her top tricks!" "Yes, but given that 25 hours ago she had never held a hand, I think that's well done." Cue embarrassed silence :-)

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2016-August-25, 11:22, said:

I think it's more "and by 'relaxed', what we mean is 'don't apply unless the opponents complain. If the opponents complain, an acceptable TD response is "why are you playing the midnights again?" ' "

The relaxation was just assumed for many years. At the last few NABCs, the midnight TD has been making an explicit announcement at the beginning of the session to the effect that you can play anything you want, like forcing pass, phantom club, etc. unless your opponents can't deal with it, then you have to play something GCC-legal.

Attendance at the midnights is not great, so they can't afford to lose the few LOLs who show up. Having to play something "normal" for 6 boards isn't going to drive away the juniors who like to fool around.

[gombo121]

manudude03, on 2016-August-25, 03:09, said:

What isn't ok though is to play that 1N-2H is to play for one partner while it is a transfer if the other bids it.

So, is it not ok because of possible confusion due to the bids changing meanings or plainly because it is regarded "not fair" to let one player declare everything?

In the former case, it seems, my first example should be illegal, while in the latter case the illegal one is the second example.

[manudude03]

gombo121, on 2016-August-25, 13:26, said:

So, is it not ok because of possible confusion due to the bids changing meanings or plainly because it is regarded "not fair" to let one player declare everything?

In the former case, it seems, my first example should be illegal, while in the latter case the illegal one is the second example.

It is more like you cannot play a system* where for a specific contract, one specific player is systemically forced into declaring all the hands.

An easy test is to make both players write down the meaning of the relevant bids if they were to bid it. Small deviations (like slight differences in point ranges and suit quality) come under style issues that need to be disclosed, but it not illegal. If they are fundamentally different, then it is illegal. So for your 1m-3S example, you can play that it is a puppet to 3N (with 3N to play), but you cannot play that it is a puppet to 3N if bid by one player and a pre-empt if bid by the other.

* While a legal system (ignoring RA regulations) can be made to achieve that effect, it simply wouldn't be practical if it were legal.

[blackshoe]

And of course, anyone playing in the midnights can tell just by looking at them whether their opponents can "deal with" whatever they were planning to throw at them.

[mycroft]

Actually, usually you can, and it's usually pretty obvious - if you are one of those "protected pairs" - whether your opponents are likely to be playing something off the wall. The midnights are a whole different world, and you can see the "deer in the headlights" of the Oh I Didn't Know types well before the event starts.

The announcement is nice - although I've never heard it - just as a warning to the "protected pairs" that maybe they should announce themselves. Having said that, pd and I tend to play EHAA in the midnights, which *is* GCC-legal...

Spoiler

I'm bringing a 6-sided die (actually, if I can find it, a Fudge die, what would be best would be if the sides were labelled "K", "P", "E", but I hope we can remember) to the next midnights I play with that partner. We'll roll it before every board. Enjoy!